Criminal Law (2005 Fall)
X. GROUP CRIMINALITY
- Overview
AIDING & ABETTING CONSPIRACY ACT = any assistance
+
INTENT
Intent to agree [Lauria] +
Agreement [Interstate, Alvarez (2)] +
Overt act (unless serious crime)
NARROW INTENT TESTS Intent to commit substantive offense (knowledge not enough) [Hicks, Gladstone, MPC]
Association/nexus with perpetrator [Gladstone]ADDITIONAL LIABILITY FOR CO-CONSPIRATOR SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
Intent to commit substantive crime [MPC]BROAD INTENT TESTS Knowledge of results (for serious crime)
OR
Reasonable, foreseeable, natural consequence of setting criminal activity into motion [Luparello, Roy]
Pinkerton – Liable for substantive crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy or that are reasonably foreseeable consequences - Aiding and Abetting
- Act – Any assistance at all
- Intent
- Hicks – Defendant was present when Rowe murdered Colvard and said something to Rowe.
- Gladstone – Defendant drew map to marijuana dealer’s house.
- Fountain – Knowledge of purpose for which weapon would be used establishes liability. Purpose required for lesser crimes; knowledge enough for major crimes.
- Luparello – Defendant liable for “natural, probable, and foreseeable” harms in the course of other intended offense.
- Roy – “Natural and probable” is insufficient by itself when defendant didn’t intend to participate.
Note: Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime.
- Conspiracy
- Elements
- Intent to agree [Lauria]
- Stake in venture/inflated charges
- No other legitimate use
- Disproportionate business
- Agreement
- Simultaneity not required [Interstate Circuit]
- No conspiracy for association, such as membership in gang [Garcia]
- Knowledge may be inferred [Alvarez (2) – Smile and promise to be there enough to infer knowledge of details of crime]
- Overt act (not required for serious crimes)
- Ohio – Act from which intent may be inferred
- Maine – “Substantial step”, closer to attempt
- Intent to agree [Lauria]
- Further Liability
- Pinkerton (minority) – Defendant in jail held liable for substantive crimes committed by brother.
- Bridges – Defendant in brawl at birthday party liable for murder by co-conspirator as it was within scope of conspiracy by being reasonably foreseeable.
- Alvarez (1) – Defendant in drug sting killing might not have been liable if the role was “minor”, reducing foreseeability.
- MPC (majority) – Defendants liable for further substantive crimes only when strict conditions for accomplice liability are met.
- Abandonment and Renunciation
- Common Law
- “Affirmative action” to announce withdrawal.
- Some jurisdictions also require thwarting.
- Liable for conspiracy, but no longer for further crimes.
- MPC
- Withdrawal requires “affirmative action” to announce withdrawal.
- Renunciation is an affirmative defense against all conspiracy charges and is established by successful thwarting.
- Common Law
- Elements
No comments:
Post a Comment